What has been the effect on trial outcome assessments of a decade of patient participation in OMERACT?

A community-centric model for conference co-creation: the world conference on CDG for patients, families and professionals

BACKGROUND

Patient and public co-creation and involvement in health initiatives have been witnessing great expansion in recent years. From healthcare to research settings, collaborative approaches are becoming increasingly prevalent and diverse, especially in the field of rare diseases which faces complex challenges. Conference development and implementation, however, have been primarily guided by passive, information-sharing models. There is a need for conferences to evolve towards more inclusive, interactive, collaborative, and problem-solving platforms. Here, we aimed to report on a pioneer model, emphasizing a community partnership approach to conference co-creation that takes the World Conference on Congenital Glycosylation Disorders (CDG) as an exemplary case.

METHODS

To answer the need to overcome the lack of access to high-quality information which limits CDG diagnosis, research and treatment options, the World CDG Organization has been refining a community-centric model for conference co-creation. Focusing on the 5th edition of the conference, data on stakeholders' preferences was collected using an online survey and a poll to define the conference agenda, guide its development and select optimal dates for an all-stakeholder inclusive, relevant and participatory event.

RESULTS

We describe the complexities of the community-centric conference co-creation model, detailing its refined methodology and the outcomes achieved. The model is grounded on a participative approach to promote people-centered research and care for CDG patients. The involvement of the public in the conference co-creation and in participatory methods allowed the generation of knowledge on community needs and preferences.

CONCLUSION

This paper describes a reliable, highly adaptable conference co-creation model that fosters community-building, disseminates understandable information, and serves as a borderless platform to incentivize multiple stakeholder collaborations towards CDG research and drug development. We argue this is a reproducible model that can be endorsed and more widely adopted by other disease communities and events.

Patient research partner engagement in OMERACT: Enhancing engagement through the implementation of patient engagement in research tools

OBJECTIVES

This paper describes the evolution and impact of Patient Research Partners (PRPs) in shaping research within OMERACT and provides a framework to enhance their engagement. This session explored one component of a validated framework to evaluate meaningful patient engagement. It provides insights, identifies opportunities for improvement, and recommends using the Patient Engagement in Research (PEIR) Framework, PEIR Plan Guide (workbook), and PEIRS-22 (scale) to guide and measure PRPs' engagement.

METHODS

Before the conference, the team held planning sessions and selected the Feel-Valued component of the PEIR Workbook for exploration. During OMERACT 2023, we discussed this topic using the PEIR Plan Guide in an interactive plenary session.

RESULTS

The plenary session produced 72 items from 14 breakout tables addressing PEIR Framework themes.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper highlights the role and evolution of PRPs in shaping research within OMERACT. It emphasizes enhancing and accurately measuring PRP engagement through the PEIR Framework, PEIR Plan Guide, and PEIRS-22. The insights and methodologies presented aim to fortify future PRP engagement, ensuring it aligns with OMERACT's principles of patient-centred research.

Barriers and facilitators of meaningful patient participation at the collective level in healthcare organizations: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Collective patient participation, such as patient participation in policy making, has become increasingly important to achieve high-quality care. However, there is little knowledge on how to let patients participate in a meaningful manner at this level. The aim of this systematic literature review was to provide an overview of barriers, facilitators, and associated impact of collective patient participation.

METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE were searched until May 2023 for studies that evaluated collective patient participation. Study characteristics, methods for patient participation, barriers and facilitators, and impact (if measured) of patient participation were extracted from the articles.

RESULTS

We included 59 articles. Identified barriers and facilitators of collective patient participation were grouped into five categories: (1) preconditions for patient participation, (2) strategy for patient participation, (3) preparation of patients and staff for patient participation, (4) support for patients and staff during patient participation, and (5) evaluation of patient participation. Impact of patient participation was reported in 34 included studies at three levels: quality of care and research, the team and organization, and the participants themselves. Only three studies reported quantitative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Interestingly, similar challenges were experienced during a period of twenty years, indicating that little progress has been made in structuring patient participation. Our overview of barriers and facilitators will therefore help to improve and structure collective patient participation.

Involving patients as research partners in research in rheumatology: a literature review in 2023

OBJECTIVE

The inclusion of patient research partners (PRPs) in research projects is increasingly recognised and recommended in rheumatology. The level of involvement of PRPs in translational research in rheumatology remains unknown, while in randomised clinical trials (RCTs), it has been reported to be 2% in 2020. Therefore, we aimed to assess the involvement of PRPs in recent translational studies and RCTs in rheumatology.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping literature review of the 80 most recent articles (40 translational studies and 40 RCTs) from four target diseases: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and lower extremity osteoarthritis. We selected 20 papers from each disease, published up until 1 March 2023, in rheumatology and general scientific journals. In each paper, the extent of PRP involvement was assessed. Analyses were descriptive.

RESULTS

Of 40 translational studies, none reported PRP involvement. Of 40 RCTs, eight studies (20%) reported PRP involvement. These trials were mainly from Europe (75%) and North America (25%). Most of them (75%) were non-industry funded. The type of PRP involvement was reported in six of eight studies: six studies reported PRP participation in the study design or design of the intervention and two of them in the interpretation of the results. All the trials reporting the number of PRPs (75%), involved at least two PRPs.

CONCLUSION

Despite a worldwide movement advocating for increased patient involvement in research, PRPs in translational research and RCTs in rheumatology are significantly under-represented. This limited involvement of PRPs in research highlights a persistent gap between the existing recommendations and actual practice.

Including Patient Voices in Continuing Medical Education: One Provider's Experience

In 2021, UpToDate began offering continuing medical education (CME) planned and delivered by patients. The patient-authored medical topic reviews focus on lessons learned from interactions with the healthcare system and emphasise quality of life for those living with specific conditions. Having access to the patient voice at the point of care provides clinicians with a perspective that can improve patient-provider communication and promote shared decision-making. Participants who viewed the patient-authored topics were emailed a survey about the content; several responses indicated that the new topics were useful in clinical practice. While positive responses demonstrate that clinicians value the patient perspective, we also received replies from participants and from the patient authors themselves indicating there is more work to be done in developing patient-led CME. As more patients are invited to join the conversation, their expertise will be increasingly recognised as integral to CME.

Including General Audiences in a Virtual Scientific Dementia Conference: Will They Get Anything From It?

BACKGROUND

Study participants, patients, and care partners are key stakeholders in research and have asked for greater inclusion in the dissemination of scientific learning. However, the participation of general audiences in scientific conferences dedicated to Alzheimer's disease and Alzheimer's disease related dementias (AD/ADRD) is not widely supported or studied.

OBJECTIVE

Our objectives were to evaluate the interest, level of engagement, and impact of including general audiences in a virtual dementia conference.

METHODS

A diverse group of lay participants, identified via community-based health advocacy groups and research centers, were invited to attend the 2021 Alzheimer's Association International Conference (AAIC), with optional small-group discussions. Participants received complimentary access to all scientific sessions and were supported via navigation tips, recommended sessions, and a glossary of frequently used terms and acronyms.

RESULTS

Lay participants demonstrated a high level of engagement, even among those that were research-naïve, attending virtual sessions for an average of 11.7 hours across the five days and recommending a variety of sessions to each other on topics extending from prevention of dementia to new therapies and care. Most participants said they would attend the conference again and rated the quality of interaction as high, while requesting more opportunities to engage directly with researchers.

CONCLUSION

General audiences, in particular research participants, are advocating for greater participation in scientific conferences. This program can serve as a model to accomplish inclusion; thereby acknowledging their invaluable contribution to science.

Negotiating agency and belonging during the first lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic: an interview study among older adults in England, UK

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to explore the agency of older adults and their strategies to restructure ways of being and belonging in a rapidly and radically changed social environment during the UK's first COVID-19 lockdown in Spring 2020.

DESIGN

Qualitative study consisting of semi-structured interviews. Findings were derived from a thematic analysis of interview transcripts. We also established a patient and public involvement and engagement group who advised on study design, interview topic guide and interpretation of findings.

SETTING

Interviews were conducted online with older adults in the UK through their platform of choice in Spring 2020 in England, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

We conducted 28 interviews (16 women, 12 men) with older adults over the age of 70 years. Our participants were mostly white, middle class adults.

RESULTS

From the data, we constructed three strategies that older adults used to employ agency and create spaces of belonging in their social networks despite lockdown restrictions. First, participants created a sense of belonging by being 'good' members of society who were knowledgeable about COVID-19. Second, older adults created new ways to socially engage with the wider community. Finally, older adults actively restructured social networks to preserve a sense of belonging.

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults are actively and creatively carving a space of belonging during the societal upheaval in response to the COVID-19 lockdown and public health restrictions. Rather than internalising potential exclusionary messages based on their age, older adults instead used their agency to reimagine and transform spheres of belonging.

Stakeholder involvement in dementia research: A qualitative approach with healthy senior citizens and providers of dementia care in Germany

Engaging stakeholders in health-related research is becoming commonplace internationally and is increasingly considered best research practice to improve care management services. Many different groups have a stake in dementia care, but the evidence base for stakeholder involvement in dementia research is still small. The aim of this study was to explore views of two major stakeholder groups of dementia care in research priority setting and how they would want to be involved in dementia research. Group discussions were carried out with 47 participants divided into two groups: (a) healthy senior citizens and (b) providers of dementia care. Ensuing responses were analysed using descriptive content analysis. The main research interest of both groups was similar, but senior citizens and providers of dementia care varied in how they perceived the roles of researchers and stakeholders involved. Groups also differed with respect to the amount of time they would be willing to invest into research. The results contribute to our knowledge of group-specific stakeholder priorities and attitudes regarding participatory involvement in dementia research.

Coproduction, Coeducation, and Patient Involvement: Everyone Included Framework for Medical Education Across Age Groups and Cultures

Medical education, research, and health care practice continue to grow with minimal coproduction guidance. We suggest the Commons Principle approach to medical education as modeled by Ostrom and Williamson, where we share how adapting these models to multiple settings can enhance empathy, increase psychological safety, and provide robust just-in-time learning tools for practice. We here describe patient and public coproduction in diverse areas within health care using the commons philosophy across populations, cultures, and generations with learning examples across age groups and cultures. We further explore descriptive, mixed methods participatory action in medical and research education. We adopt an "Everyone Included" perspective and sought to identify its use in continuing medical education, citizen science, marginalized groups, publishing, and student internships. Overall, we outline coproduction at the point of need, as we report on strategies that improved engagement. This work demonstrates coproduction with the public across multiple settings and cultures, showing that even with minimal resources and experience, this partnership can improve medical education and care.

[Participatory research in the German Rheumatism League. Content implementation and practical realisation of participatory research in a patient organisation]

The German Rheumatism League ("Deutsche Rheuma-Liga") is the largest patient organisation in Germany, with about 300,000 members. In the sense of participatory research, the Deutsche Rheuma-Liga involves trained patient representatives in research projects funded by either the Deutsche Rheuma-Liga or other organisations. In order to invigorate the principle of participatory research in the field of rheumatology in Germany various measures have been undertaken: the principle of participatory research has been implemented as obligatory in the funding guidelines of the German Rheumatism League. A training course for German-speaking patients was created, and reference cards and an explanatory brochure were provided. In a letter campaign, about 70 universities and hospitals with rheumatology departments were contacted and informed about the benefits of participatory research. Since 2014, three training courses with 21 participants have been conducted. The trained patient representatives have participated in more than 30 projects up to the end of 2019. The overall experience of the patient representatives actively involved in research projects was mainly positive, and participatory research was perceived as being interesting and enriching. The implementation of participatory research in the German Rheumatism League can be described as successful. The article describes the measures taken to implement the principle of participatory research into the structures of the German Rheumatism League and summarises the experiences of patients and the patient organisation during five years of active participation in research projects.

“Can I go to Glasgow?” Learnings from patient involvement at the 17th Congress of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD)

Background:

Recognition of the discrepancy between the research priorities of patients and health professionals has prompted efforts to involve patients as active contributors in research activities, including scientific conferences. However, there is limited evidence about the experience, challenges, and impacts of patient involvement to inform best practice. This study aims to describe patient and health professional perspectives on patient involvement at the Congress of the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD).

Methods:

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 14 patients/caregivers and 15 health professionals from six countries who attended ISPD. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and transcripts were analyzed thematically.

Results:

We identified four themes: protecting and enhancing scientific learning (grounding science in stories, sharing and inspiring new perspectives, distilling the key messages of research presentations, striking a balance between accommodating patients and presenting the science); democratizing access to research (redistributing power, challenging the traditional ownership of knowledge, cultivating self-management through demystifying research); inadequate support for patient/caregiver delegates (lacking purposeful inclusion, challenges in interpreting research findings, soliciting medical advice, difficulty negotiating venue and program, limited financial assistance in attending); and amplifying impact beyond the room (sparking innovation in practice, giving patients and families hope for the future).

Conclusions:

Patient involvement at the ISPD Congress clarified the applicability of research to patient care and self-management, democratized science, and strengthened the potential impact of research. More structured support for patients to help them purposefully articulate their experience in relation to session objectives may enhance their contribution and their own learning experience.

Understanding and using patient experiences as evidence in healthcare priority setting

BACKGROUND

In many countries, committees make priority-setting decisions in order to control healthcare costs. These decisions take into account relevant criteria, including clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and need, and are supported by evidence usually drawn from clinical and economic studies. These sources of evidence do not include the specific perspective and information that patients can provide about the condition and treatment.

METHODS

Drawing on arguments from political philosophy and ethics that are the ethical basis for many priority-setting bodies, the authors argue that criteria like need and its effects on patients and caregivers are best supported by evidence generated from patients' experiences. Social sciences and mixed-methods research support the generation and collection of robust evidence.

RESULTS

Patient experience is required for a decision-making process that considers all relevant evidence. For fair priority-setting, decision-makers should consider relevant evidence and reasons, so patient experience evidence should not be ignored. Patient experience must be gathered in a way that generates high quality and methodologically rigorous evidence. Established quantitative and qualitative methods can assure that evidence is systematic, adherent to quality standards, and valid. Patient, like clinical, evidence should be subject to a transparent review process.

DISCUSSION

Considering all relevant evidence gives each person an equal opportunity at having their treatment funded. Patient experience gives context to the clinical evidence and also directly informs our understanding of the nature of the condition and its effects, including patients' needs, how to meet them, and the burden of illness. Such evidence also serves to contextualise reported effects of the treatment. The requirement to include patient experience as evidence has important policy implications for bodies that make priority-setting decisions since it proposes that new types of evidence reviews are commissioned and considered.

Evaluating the "return on patient engagement initiatives" in medicines research and development: A literature review

Background

Showing how engagement adds value for all stakeholders can be an effective motivator for broader implementation of patient engagement. However, it is unclear what methods can best be used to evaluate patient engagement. This paper is focused on ways to evaluate patient engagement at three decision‐making points in the medicines research and development process: research priority setting, clinical trial design and early dialogues with regulators and health technology assessment bodies.

Objective

Our aim was to review the literature on monitoring and evaluation of patient engagement, with a focus on indicators and methods.

Search strategy and inclusion criteria

We undertook a scoping literature review using a systematic search, including academic and grey literature with a focus on evaluation approaches or outcomes associated with patient engagement. No date limits were applied other than a cut‐off of publications after July 2018.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data were extracted from 91 publications, coded and thematically analysed.

Main results

A total of 18 benefits and 5 costs of patient engagement were identified, mapped with 28 possible indicators for their evaluation. Several quantitative and qualitative methods were found for the evaluation of benefits and costs of patient engagement.

Discussion and conclusions

Currently available indicators and methods are of some use in measuring impact but are not sufficient to understand the pathway to impact, nor whether interaction between researchers and patients leads to change. We suggest that the impacts of patient engagement can best be determined not by applying single indicators, but a coherent set of measures.

Successful Stepwise Development of Patient Research Partnership: 14 Years' Experience of Actions and Consequences in Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)

There is increasing interest in making patient participation an integral component of medical research. However, practical guidance on optimizing this engagement in healthcare is scarce. Since 2002, patient involvement has been one of the key features of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) international consensus effort. Based on a review of cumulative data from qualitative studies and internal surveys among OMERACT participants, we explored the potential benefits and challenges of involving patient research partners in conferences and working group activities. We supplemented our review with personal experiences and reflections regarding patient participation in the OMERACT process. We found that between 2002 and 2016, 67 patients have attended OMERACT conferences, of whom 28 had sustained involvement; many other patients contributed to OMERACT working groups. Their participation provided face validity to the OMERACT process and expanded the research agenda. Essential facilitators have been the financial commitment to guarantee sustainable involvement of patients at these conferences, procedures for recruitment, selection and support, and dedicated time allocated in the program for patient issues. Current challenges include the representativeness of the patient panel, risk of pseudo-professionalization, and disparity in patients’ and researchers’ perception of involvement. In conclusion, OMERACT has embedded long-term patient involvement in the consensus-building process on the measurement of core health outcomes. This integrative process continues to evolve iteratively. We believe that the practical points raised here can improve participatory research implementation.

Patient Participation at Health Care Conferences: Engaged Patients Increase Information Flow, Expand Propagation, and Deepen Engagement in the Conversation of Tweets Compared to Physicians or Researchers

BACKGROUND

Health care conferences present a unique opportunity to network, spark innovation, and disseminate novel information to a large audience, but the dissemination of information typically stays within very specific networks. Social network analysis can be adopted to understand the flow of information between virtual social communities and the role of patients within the network.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact engaged patients bring to health care conference social media information flow and how they expand dissemination and distribution of tweets compared to other health care conference stakeholders such as physicians and researchers.

METHODS

From January 2014 through December 2016, 7,644,549 tweets were analyzed from 1672 health care conferences with at least 1000 tweets who had registered in Symplur's Health Care Hashtag Project from 2014 to 2016. The tweet content was analyzed to create a list of the top 100 influencers by mention from each conference, who were then subsequently categorized by stakeholder group. Multivariate linear regression models were created using stepwise function building to identify factors explaining variability as predictor variables for the model in which conference tweets were taken as the dependent variable.

RESULTS

Inclusion of engaged patients in health care conference social media was low compared to that of physicians and has not significantly changed over the last 3 years. When engaged patient voices are included in health care conferences, they greatly increase information flow as measured by total tweet volume (beta=301.6) compared to physicians (beta=137.3, P<.001), expand propagation of information tweeted during a conference as measured by social media impressions created (beta=1,700,000) compared to physicians (beta=270,000, P<.001), and deepen engagement in the tweet conversation as measured by replies to their tweets (beta=24.4) compared to physicians (beta=5.5, P<.001). Social network analysis of hubs and authorities revealed that patients had statistically significant higher hub scores (mean 8.26×10-4, SD 2.96×10-4) compared to other stakeholder groups' Twitter accounts (mean 7.19×10-4, SD 3.81×10-4; t273.84=4.302, P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although engaged patients are powerful accelerators of information flow, expanders of tweet propagation, and greatly deepen engagement in conversation of tweets on social media of health care conferences compared to physicians, they represent only 1.4% of the stakeholder mix of the top 100 influencers in the conversation. Health care conferences that fail to engage patients in their proceedings may risk limiting their engagement with the public, disseminating scientific information to a narrow community and slowing flow of information across social media channels.

Engaging Stakeholders and Promoting Uptake of OMERACT Core Outcome Instrument Sets

OBJECTIVE

While there has been substantial progress in the development of core outcomes sets, the degree to which these are used by researchers is variable. We convened a special workshop on knowledge translation at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2016 with 2 main goals. The first focused on the development of a formal knowledge translation framework and the second on promoting uptake of recommended core outcome domain and instrument sets.

METHODS

We invited all 189 OMERACT 2016 attendees to the workshop; 86 attended, representing patient research partners (n = 15), healthcare providers/clinician researchers (n = 52), industry (n = 4), regulatory agencies (n = 4), and OMERACT fellows (n = 11). Participants were given an introduction to knowledge translation and were asked to propose and discuss recommendations for the OMERACT community to (1) strengthen stakeholder involvement in the core outcome instrument set development process, and (2) promote uptake of core outcome sets with a specific focus on the potential role of post-regulatory decision makers.

RESULTS

We developed the novel "OMERACT integrated knowledge translation" framework, which formalizes OMERACT's knowledge translation strategies. We produced strategies to improve stakeholder engagement throughout the process of core outcome set development and created a list of creative and innovative ways to promote the uptake of OMERACT's core outcome sets.

CONCLUSION

The guidance provided in this paper is preliminary and is based on the views of the participants. Future work will engage OMERACT groups, "post-regulatory decision makers," and a broad range of different stakeholders to identify and evaluate the most useful methods and processes, and to revise guidance accordingly.

Framework for Advancing the Reporting of Patient Engagement in Rheumatology Research Projects

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The term "patient engagement in research" refers to patients and their surrogates undertaking roles in the research process beyond those of study participants. This paper proposes a new framework for describing patient engagement in research, based on analysis of 30 publications related to patient engagement.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the past 15 years, patients' perspectives have been instrumental in broadening the scope of rheumatology research and outcome measurement, such as evaluating fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis. Recent reviews, however, highlight low-quality reporting of patient engagement in research. Until we have more detailed information about patient engagement in rheumatology research, our understanding of how patients' perspectives are being integrated into research projects remains limited. When authors follow our guidance on the important components for describing patients' roles and function as "research partners," researchers and other knowledge users will better understand how patients' perspectives were integrated in their research projects.

Health Equity Considerations for Developing and Reporting Patient-reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials: A Report from the OMERACT Equity Special Interest Group

OBJECTIVE

Despite advances integrating patient-centered outcomes into rheumatologic studies, concerns remain regarding their representativeness across diverse patient groups and how this affects equity. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Equity Working Group aims to determine whether and how to address equity issues within the core outcome sets of domains and instruments.

METHODS

We surveyed current and previous OMERACT meeting attendees and members of the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Group regarding whether to address equity issues within the OMERACT Filter 2.0 Core Outcome Sets and how to assess the appropriateness of domains, instruments, and measurement properties among diverse patients. At OMERACT 2016, results of the survey and a narrative review of differential psychosocial effects of rheumatoid arthritis (i.e., on men) were presented to stimulate discussion and develop a research agenda.

RESULTS

We proposed 6 moments for which an equity lens could be added to the development, selection, or testing of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM): (1) recruitment, (2) domain selection, (3) feasibility in diverse settings, (4) instrument validity, (5) thresholds of meaning, and (6) consideration of statistical power of subgroup analyses for outcome reporting.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to (1) conduct a systematic review to assess how equity and population characteristics have been considered in PROM development and whether these differences influence the ranking of importance of outcome domains or a patient's response to questionnaire items, and (2) conduct the same survey described above with patients representing groups experiencing health inequities.

The impact of involvement on researchers: a learning experience

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

The impacts of involvement in research are often described in terms of the difference made to the research, the people involved and less frequently the researchers. This paper focuses on the researchers' experiences of involvement, based on an evaluation of a pilot project supporting patient/carer involvement in research at Parkinson's UK. Telephone interviews were conducted with researchers from eight different research projects with involvement. The researchers reported gaining new knowledge from patients and carers. They used this knowledge to change their project designs, interventions and new devices. They also gained new skills in communicating with the public. Meeting patients for the first time had a profound impact on some researchers, causing a change in their professional values. Face-to-face contact seemed particularly important to gain a sense of the 'people behind the data', which suggests such meetings may result in impacts beyond those typically achieved through an exchange of documents. Involvement also influenced one researcher's choices and preferences, in terms of who to ask to take part in their study In summary, researchers often learn something new from talking to patients and carers. Facilitating this conversation seems important to maximise the impact of this learning. In future, it might be helpful for evaluations of involvement to ask researchers in more detail about what they learnt from patients/carers and how they applied their new skills and knowledge. This may help to understand how involvement can influence researchers' thinking to have an impact on research.

ABSTRACT

Background The impacts of patient/public involvement are often described in terms of the difference made to the research, the researchers and the people involved. Involvement often impacts on research by influencing the design, delivery and dissemination. Patients/the public report gaining new skills and knowledge, increased self-confidence, and satisfaction from making a difference. There are fewer reports of the impacts on researchers. This paper discusses the findings from an evaluation of a pilot project supporting patient/carer involvement in research at Parkinson's UK, focusing on the researchers' experiences. Methods Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with one researcher from each of the eight research projects which involved patients/carers in the pilot. The findings were analysed using theoretical thematic analysis. Results and discussion Learning can be described as acquiring new knowledge, behaviours, skills, values, or preferences. The researchers' reports reflected these different types of learning. They reported gaining new knowledge from patients and carers, which they recognised as distinct from their textbook knowledge of the condition. They used this learning to change their project designs and their new interventions and devices. They also gained new skills in communicating with patients and carers about the aims and significance of their research. Meeting patients for the first time had a profound impact on some researchers causing them to change their professional values. Face-to-face contact seemed particularly important to gain a sense of the 'people behind the data', which suggests such meetings may result in impacts beyond those typically achieved through an exchange of documents. The involvement also influenced one researchers' priorities and preferences, in terms of what questions to ask and of whom, in their project. Conclusions Researchers learn from an exchange of knowledge with patients/ carers, which influences their plans and actions. This seems to be one way that involvement subsequently has an impact on research. Facilitating this exchange seems important to support mutual learning and to enhance the impact on researchers. Future evaluations of involvement might benefit from exploring what researchers learnt from patients/carers and how they applied their new skills and knowledge.

It's not evidence, it's insight: bringing patients' perspectives into health technology appraisal at NICE

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Health technology appraisal involves reviewing the findings from clinical trials and economic data to produce guidance on how health technology should be used. This task is carried out by appraisal committees in NICE. One of the several ways in which patients can feed their views into these committees is via a written patient statement. We asked nine committee members about what difference the information from patients makes to their decision-making. The Committee members reported that written patient statements offer a different perspective when reviewing the clinical and economic data. This can have a profound impact when a committee draws conclusions based solely on the data, which may not reflect the reality of patients' lives. The patients' and carers' input provides meaning to the data, 'bringing the numbers to life'. It identifies if the technology has any wider impacts than what's been reported in the clinical trial, and also if the trial has measured what's important to patients. We conclude that the written patient statement adds value to the decision-making process by helping Committee members to make sense of the clinical and economic data-it makes them look at the evidence 'in a different light'. Patients' stories are very effective in this context, because they have the power to communicate and to challenge Committee members' assumptions. Understanding this difference between analysing research evidence and drawing on patients' insights is important in thinking about what's needed in a written patient statement and the best way to obtain it.

ABSTRACT

Background Health technology appraisal involves reviewing clinical and economic data to inform guidance on the use of technology. In England this task is carried out by appraisal committees within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Patients are not committee members as they have a vested interest in the outcome, but one of the several ways they are involved is through submitting a written patient statement, which is considered by the committee during its deliberations. We aimed to find out how the written patient statement adds value to the decision-making process by exploring how it is used in practice. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine members of NICE appraisal committees. The interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. We drew on published evidence of the impact of patient involvement on clinical research and our experience of supporting organisations to produce written patient statements to analyse the findings. Results Committee members reported that written patient statements offer a different perspective when evaluating clinical and economic data. This can have a profound impact when a committee draws conclusions based on data that may not reflect the reality of the patient experience. Information from patients and carers also provides context and meaning to the data, by explaining its real-life implications. It identifies wider impacts of a technology that may not have been assessed in a clinical trial, as well as commenting on whether what has been measured in a trial is relevant to patients. The main barrier to using the written patient statement is the misperception that it is a form of research 'evidence', when in fact it takes the form of experiential knowledge - or insight. Conclusions The written patient statement adds value by aiding Committee members in their interpretation of existing evidence - it enables them to consider this evidence 'in a different light'. In this context, patients' experiential knowledge is effective because it is subjective, emotional and anecdotal. It then has the power to communicate and to challenge assumptions based on the data alone. Understanding this difference between using evidence and insights has implications for the content of a written patient statement and the approaches used to obtain it.

The Spirit of OMERACT: Q Methodology Analysis of Conference Characteristics Valued by Delegates

OBJECTIVE

To identify the major features of OMERACT meetings as valued by frequent participants and to explore whether there are groups of participants with different opinions.

METHODS

Using Q methodology (a qualitative and quantitative approach to grouping people according to subjective opinion), participants (who attended more than 1 OMERACT conference) sorted 66 statements relating to the "spirit of OMERACT" according to level of agreement across a normal distribution grid. Data were examined using Q factor analysis.

RESULTS

Of 226 potential participants, 105 responded (46%). All participants highly ranked the focus on global standardization of methods, outcome measures, data-driven research, methodological discussion, and international collaboration. Four factors describing the "spirit of OMERACT" were identified: "Evidence not eminence" (n = 31) valued the data- and evidence-driven research above personality and status; "Collaboration and collegiality" (n = 19) valued the international and cross-stakeholder collaboration, interaction, and collegiality; "Equal voices, equal votes, common goals" (n = 12) valued equality in discussion and voting, with everyone striving toward the same goal; "principles and product, not process" (n = 8) valued the principles of focusing on outcome measures and the product of guiding clinical trials, but were unsure whether the process is necessary to reach this. The factors did not segregate different stakeholder groups.

CONCLUSION

Delegates value different elements of OMERACT, and thus the "spirit of OMERACT" encompasses evidence-based research, collaboration, and equality, although a small group are unsure whether the process is necessary to achieve the end result. Q methodology may prove useful for conference organizers to identify their delegates' different needs to tailor conference content.

'Is it worth doing?' Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in research

ABSTRACT

Much of the current debate around the impact of patient/public involvement on research focuses on the lack of empirical data. While a number of systematic literature reviews have reported the various ways in which involvement makes a difference to research and the people involved, this evidence has been criticised as being weak and anecdotal. It is argued that robust evidence is still required. This review reflects on the use of quantitative approaches to evaluating impact. It concludes that the statistical evidence is weakened by not paying sufficient attention to the context in which involvement takes place and the way it is carried out. However, if scientific (systematic, quantitative, empirical) approaches are designed in a way to take these factors into account, they might not generate knowledge that is useful beyond the original context. Such approaches might not therefore enhance our understanding of when, why and how involvement makes a difference. In the context of individual research projects where researchers collaborate with patients/the public, researchers often acquire 'new' knowledge about life with a health condition. This new understanding can be described as experiential knowledge-'knowledge in context'-that researchers gain through direct experience of working with patients/the public. On this basis, researchers' accounts of their experience potentially provide a source of insight and learning to influence others, in the same way that the patient experience helps to shape research. These accounts could be improved by increasing the detail provided about context and mechanism. One of the most important contextual factors that influence the outcome of involvement is the researchers themselves and the skills, assumptions, values and priorities they start with. At the beginning of any research project, the researchers 'don't know what they don't know' until they involve patients/the public. This means that the impact of involvement within any particular project is somewhat unpredictable. The answer to the question 'Is involvement worth doing?' will always be 'It depends'. Further exploration of the contextual and mechanistic factors which influence outcomes could give a stronger steer to researchers but may never accurately predict any specific impact.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

In recent years, there has been considerable interest in finding out what difference patient and public involvement makes to research projects. The evidence published so far has been criticised for being weak and anecdotal. Some people argue we need robust evidence of impact from scientific studies of involvement. In this review, I consider examples of where impact has been measured using statistical methods. I conclude that the statistical evidence is weak, if the studies do not consider the context in which involvement takes place and the way that it is done. Studies designed to take this into account give us more confidence that the involvement did make a difference to that particular project. They do not tell us whether the same impact will occur in the same way in other projects and therefore have limited value. Researchers gain an understanding of involvement through their direct experience of working with patients and the public. This is 'knowledge in context' or 'insight' gained in the same way that patients gain expertise through their direct experience of a health condition. This means that detailed accounts of involvement from researchers already provide valuable learning to others, in the same way that patients' insights help shape research. However, the impact of involvement will always be somewhat unpredictable, because at the start of any project researchers 'don't know what they don't know'-they do not know precisely what problems they might anticipate, until the patients/public tell them.

Increasing User Involvement in Health Care and Health Research Simultaneously: A Proto-Protocol for "Person-as-Researcher" and Online Decision Support Tools

Background

User involvement is appearing increasingly on policy agendas in many countries, with a variety of proposals for facilitating it. The belief is that it will produce better health for individuals and community, as well as demonstrate greater respect for the basic principles of autonomy and democracy.

Objective

Our Web-based project aims to increase involvement in health care and health research and is presented in the form of an umbrella protocol for a set of project-specific protocols. We conceptualize the person as a researcher engaged in a continual, living, informal “n-of-1”-type study of the effects of different actions and interventions on their health, including those implying contact with health care services. We see their research as primarily carried out in order to make better decisions for themselves, but they can offer to contribute the results to the wider population. We see the efforts of the "person-as-researcher" as contributing to the total amount of research undertaken in the community, with research not being confined to that undertaken by professional researchers and institutions. This view is fundamentally compatible with both the emancipatory and conventional approaches to increased user involvement, though somewhat more aligned with the former.

Methods

Our online decision support tools, delivered directly to the person in the community and openly accessible, are to be seen as research resources. They will take the form of interactive decision aids for a variety of specific health conditions, as well as a generic one that supports all health and health care decisions through its focus on key aspects of decision quality. We present a high-level protocol for the condition-specific studies that will implement our approach, organized within the Populations, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes, Timings, and Settings (PICOTS) framework.

Results

Our underlying hypothesis concerns the person-as-researcher who is equipped with a prescriptive, transparent, expected value-based opinion—an opinion that combines their criterion importance weights with the Best Estimates Available Now for how well each of the available options performs on each of those outcomes. The hypothesis is that this person-as-researcher is more likely to be able to position themselves as an active participant in a clinical encounter, if they wish, than someone who has engaged with a descriptive decision aid that attempts to work with their existing cognitive processes and stresses the importance of information. The precise way this is hypothesis tested will be setting-specific and condition-specific and will be spelled out in the individual project protocols.

Conclusions

Decision resources that provide fast access to the results of slower thinking can provide the stimulus that many individuals need to take a more involved role in their own health. Our project, advanced simply as one approach to increased user involvement, is designed to make progress in the short term with minimal resources and to do so at the point of decision need, when motivation is highest. Some basic distinctions, such as those between science and non-science, research and practice, community and individual, and lay and professional become somewhat blurred and may need to be rethought in light of this approach.